U.S. patent application number 10/662568 was filed with the patent office on 2004-04-01 for computerized system and method for simultaneously representing and recording dynamic judgments.
Invention is credited to Baird, John Charlton, Chawarski, Marek Cezary.
Application Number | 20040064266 10/662568 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 27360611 |
Filed Date | 2004-04-01 |
United States Patent
Application |
20040064266 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Baird, John Charlton ; et
al. |
April 1, 2004 |
Computerized system and method for simultaneously representing and
recording dynamic judgments
Abstract
The computerized system and method represents judgments of a
user and records the judgments and the judgment making process. In
one embodiment, the computerized method displays multiple concept
representations simultaneously, receives a user-manipulated
adjustment to one or more of the concept representations to create
a judgment representation, and records the judgment
representation(s) and user-manipulated adjustment(s). The judgment
representations and adjustments are preferably recorded
continuously so that the judgment process can be reviewed and
evaluated. The concept representations can be displayed relative to
other concept representations and/or relative to a rating scale. In
another embodiment, the computerized method displays a physical
context representation and the judgments are represented and
recorded as user designated locations in the physical context. One
example of an application for the system and method is to record
and evaluate a patient's judgments with respect to pain.
Inventors: |
Baird, John Charlton;
(Newport, NH) ; Chawarski, Marek Cezary; (New
Haven, CT) |
Correspondence
Address: |
DEVINE, MILLIMET & BRANCH, P.A.
111 AMHERST STREET
BOX 719
MANCHESTER
NH
03105
US
|
Family ID: |
27360611 |
Appl. No.: |
10/662568 |
Filed: |
September 15, 2003 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
10662568 |
Sep 15, 2003 |
|
|
|
10016623 |
Dec 10, 2001 |
|
|
|
6619961 |
|
|
|
|
60270854 |
Feb 23, 2001 |
|
|
|
60292115 |
May 18, 2001 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
702/34 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A61B 5/4824 20130101;
A61B 5/16 20130101; G09B 23/28 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
702/034 |
International
Class: |
G01B 003/44 |
Goverment Interests
[0002] This invention was made with Government support under SBIR
grant Nos. 1 R43 MH62833-01, 1 R43 NS42387-01, 1 R43 HL/MH68493-01
awarded by the National Institutes of Health. The Government has
certain rights in the invention.
Claims
The invention claimed is:
1. A computerized method of representing judgments of a user and
recording a judgment making process of said user, said method
comprising: displaying multiple concept representations to the
user, wherein said concept representations represent concepts about
which the user is asked to make a judgment by positioning said
concepts together with other concepts that go together; receiving
user manipulations of selected concept representations resulting in
user-designated locations of said concept representations relative
to one another based on the judgment of the user as to said
concepts that go together; displaying said concept representations
at said user-designated locations; continuously recording user
input information as the user manipulates said selected concept
representations; and recording said concept representations at
final user-designated locations to provide a final judgment
representation, wherein said user input information and said final
judgment representation can be used to evaluate the judgments and
the judgment making process of the user.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said user input information
includes said user manipulations and the timing of said user
manipulations.
3. The method of claim 1 further including replaying the judgment
making process of the user using said user input information.
4. The method of claim 1 further including analyzing the distances
between said concept representations at said final user-designated
locations.
5. The method of claim 4 further including placing said concept
representations in clustered groupings based on said distances.
6. The method of claim 1 wherein said concept representations are
words.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein said concept representations
represent at least one of physical items and abstract ideas.
8. A computerized method of representing and recording judgments of
a user in relation to a rating scale, said method comprising:
displaying multiple concept representations to the user, wherein
each of said concept representations represents a concept about
which the user is asked to make a judgment; displaying at least one
rating scale, wherein said rating scale provides a range of
possible judgments applicable to said concepts; receiving user
manipulations of selected concept representations locating said
concept representations relative to said rating scale and relative
to other concept representations, thereby providing user input
ratings of selected concepts; displaying said selected concept
representations relative to said rating scale and relative to said
other concept representations in accordance with said user input
ratings; and recording at least a final location of said concept
representations relative to said rating scale to provide a final
judgment to be evaluated.
9. The method of claim 8 further including displaying an indication
on said rating scale of said user input rating of a concept
representation when said concept representation is being
manipulated by the user.
10. The method of claim 8 wherein said at least one rating scale is
two-dimensional including a horizontal rating scale and a vertical
rating scale, for representing two different types of
judgments.
11. The method of claim 8 wherein said at least one scale is
represented as a two-dimensional polar coordinate system, for
representing two different types of judgments.
12. The method of claim 8 wherein said concept representations are
words.
13. The method of claim 8 wherein said rating scale includes
numerical values for indicating said user input ratings.
14. The method of claim 8 further including continuously recording
user input information as the user manipulates said concept
representations, wherein said user input information allows an
evaluation of a judgment making process of the user.
15. The method of claim 14 further including replaying said
judgment making process of the user based upon said user input
information.
16. The method of claim 8 further including dynamically adjusting a
location of at least one other concept representation relative to
said rating scale when each said selected concept representation is
located relative to said rating scale such that a user can observe
dynamically how a judgment with respect to one concept
representation affects a judgment with respect to another concept
representation.
17. The method of claim 16 wherein said concept representations are
dynamically adjusted according to a fixed resource technique such
that a sum of user input ratings for each of said selected concepts
remains constant.
18. The method of claim 16 wherein said concept representations are
positioned relative to said rating scale such that said concept
representations can be dynamically adjusted without interfering
with other said concept representations.
19. The method of claim 8 wherein said concepts include sensory
symptoms, and wherein said judgment of the user is based on a
degree to which the user experiences said sensory symptoms.
20. A computerized method of representing and recording judgments
and a judgment making process of a user in relation to a physical
context, said method comprising: displaying at least one physical
context representation, wherein said physical context
representation represents a physical context in which the user is
asked to make judgments by designating locations in said physical
context; receiving a user input judgment associated with at least
one location in said physical context; displaying a location
representation at said location in said physical context
representation; continuously recording user input information as
the user designates said locations; and recording each said
location representation in said physical context representation to
provide a final judgment representation, wherein said user input
information and said final judgment representation can be used to
evaluate the judgments and the judgment making process of the
user.
21. The method of claim 20 further comprising: displaying
multidimensional judgments pertaining to at least one of said
location representations; and receiving at least one user
manipulation of at least one of said multidimensional judgments,
for further characterizing said user input judgment.
22. The method of claim 21 wherein said multi-dimensional judgments
are dynamically adjusted in response to each said user
manipulation.
23. The method of claim 22 wherein said multi-dimensional judgments
are dynamically adjustable according to a fixed resource
technique.
24. The method of claim 20 further comprising replaying said
judgment making process of said user using said user input
information.
25. A computerized method of representing and recording judgments
of a user pertaining to sensory systems, said method comprising:
displaying at least one body representation, wherein said body
representation represents at least a portion of the body of the
user in which the user is asked to make judgments by designating
locations of said sensory symptoms; receiving a user input judgment
associated with at least one location of a sensory symptom in said
body; displaying a location representation at said location in said
body representation; and recording said location representations in
said body representation to provide a final judgment
representation, wherein said final judgment representation can be
used to evaluate the judgments of the user.
26. The method of claim 25 further comprising continuously
recording user input information as the user designates said
locations, wherein said user input information allows an evaluation
of a judgment making process of the user.
27. The method of claim 26 further comprising replaying said
judgment making process of the user using said user input
information.
28. The method of claim 25 wherein different types of location
representations are used for different types of said sensory
symptoms.
29. The method of claim 28 wherein said sensory symptoms include
pain symptoms, and wherein different colors are used to represent
different intensities of pain.
30. The method of claim 25 further including comparing said final
judgment representation to a library of data to determine a
diagnosis.
31. A computer program product, stored on a storage medium, for
representing and recording judgments of a user in relation to a
rating scale, said computer program product comprising: code for
displaying multiple concept representations to the user, wherein
each of said concept representations represents a concept about
which the user is asked to make a judgment; code for displaying at
least one rating scale, wherein said rating scale provides a range
of possible judgments applicable to said concepts; code for
receiving user manipulations of selected concept representations
locating said concept representations relative to said rating scale
and relative to other concept representations, thereby providing
user input ratings of selected concepts; code for displaying said
selected concept representations relative to said rating scale and
relative to said other concept representations in accordance with
said user input ratings; and code for recording at least a final
location of said concept representations relative to said rating
scale to provide a final judgment to be evaluated.
32. A computer program product, stored on a storage medium, for
representing and recording judgments and a judgment making process
of a user in relation to a physical context, said computer program
product comprising: code for displaying at least one physical
context representation, wherein said physical context
representation represents a physical context in which the user is
asked to make judgments by designating locations in said physical
context; code for receiving a user input judgment associated with
at least one location in said physical context; code for displaying
a location representation at said location in said physical context
representation; code for continuously recording user input
information as the user designates said locations; and code for
recording each said location representation in said physical
context representation to provide a final judgment representation,
wherein said user input information and said final judgment
representation can be used to evaluate the judgments and the
judgment making process of the user.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] The present application claims the benefit of U.S.
Provisional Application Serial No. 60/270,854, filed Feb. 23, 2001,
and U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/292,115, filed May
18, 2001, both of which are fully incorporated herein by
reference.
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0003] The present invention relates to methods for representing
and recording personal judgments and more particularly relates to a
computerized system and method for representing and recording
dynamic, relative judgments of physical or non-physical concepts in
one or two dimensions.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
[0004] Studies have been performed using cognitive mapping methods
to assess a person's conception of the perceived or ideal distances
between actual or hypothetical physical objects, such as buildings
on a campus or in a town, or the perceived glossiness of images in
a photograph. These studies have been done both by physical
manipulation of objects (photographic prints), as well as by using
a computer system to record the location of objects placed by an
individual in a grid appearing on a computer monitor. These studies
and methods are described in various publications.sup.1, all of
which are incorporated herein by reference. .sup.1 Baird, J. C.,
Degerman, R., Paris, R. & Noma, E. (1972). Student planning of
town configuration. Environment and Behavior, 4, 159-188. Nagy, A.
N. and Baird, J. C. (1978). Children as environmental planners.
Chapter in Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J. F. (Eds.) Children and the
Environment, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 259-294. Baird, J. C.
(1979). Cognitive representation of spatial relations: I. Overview.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 90-91. Baird, J.
C., Merrill, A. A. and Tannenbaum, J. (1979). Cognitive
representation of spatial relations: II. A familiar environment.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 92-98. Merrill,
A. A. and Baird, J. C. (1979). Cognitive representation of spatial
relations: III. A hypothetical environment. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 108, 99-106. Engeldrum, P., & McNeill, G.
(1985). Some experiments on the perception of graininess in black
and white prints. Journal of Image Science, 29, 18. Engeldrum, P.
(1991). Print-Quality Requirements, Proceedings of SID, 32,
141.
[0005] One problem with the methods described in these publications
is that they have only been used to scale judgments of objects that
are naturally situated in a metric space (buildings) or of physical
stimuli that are directly perceived by an observer (photographic
prints). These methods are also limited in that they do not provide
a precise measure of the rating assigned to each item, because the
location of the item along the scale has an error bar equal to the
width of the pictorial word or icon. These methods also are limited
in that they do not allow for (e.g., in the case of prints), or
have not recorded (e.g., in the case of computer methods) dynamic
changes of judgments over time.
[0006] Accordingly, a computerized system and method is needed that
represents and records the scale values resulting from the dynamic
adjustment of the location of multiple concepts in one or two
dimensions. A computerized system and method is also needed that
allows the user's judgment decisions to be evaluated continuously
by recording the changes made in the user's judgments over
time.
SUMMARY
[0007] To address the needs described above, a computerized system
and method is provided for representing judgments of a user, for
recording relative judgments in one or two dimensions, and for
recording the judgment making process. In general, the computerized
method displays multiple concept representations simultaneously,
receives a user-manipulated adjustment to one or more of the
concept representations to create a judgment representation, and
records the judgment representation(s) and user-manipulated
adjustment(s). The judgment representations and adjustments are
preferably recorded continuously so that the judgment process can
be reviewed and evaluated.
[0008] In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the
computerized method represents and records relative judgments
within a physical context.
[0009] In accordance with another aspect of the present invention,
the computerized method represents and records relative judgments
along a one-dimensional scale.
[0010] In accordance with a further aspect of the present
invention, the computerized method represents and records relative
judgments along a two-dimensional scale.
[0011] In accordance with a further aspect of the present
invention, the computerized method represents and records relative
judgments using a polar coordinate scale.
[0012] In accordance with a further aspect of the present
invention, the computerized method represents and records relative
judgments by associating concepts without any physical context or
scale.
[0013] In accordance with yet another aspect of the present
invention, the computerized method represents and records relative
judgments using the above methods together with a fixed resource
technique.
[0014] The computerized system preferably implements the methods
defined above using software and a computing device.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0015] FIGS. 1 and 2 are schematic block diagrams of the
computerized system for representing and recording judgments,
according to different embodiments of the present invention;
[0016] FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating a method for
representing and recording judgments in a physical context,
according to one embodiment of the present invention;
[0017] FIGS. 4, 4A and 5 are illustrations of a human form for
indicating pain locations, according to one example of the method
for representing and recording judgments in a physical context;
[0018] FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating a method for
representing and recording judgments in relation to a rating scale,
according to another embodiment of the present invention;
[0019] FIG. 7 is a graphical illustration of a vertical rating
scale with unrated concept representations corresponding to various
types of pain, according to one example of the method for
representing and recording judgments in relation to a rating
scale;
[0020] FIG. 8 is a graphical illustration of the vertical rating
scale shown in FIG. 7 with the concept representations positioned
relative to one another and rated based on the location relative to
the rating scale;
[0021] FIGS. 9 and 10 are graphical illustrations showing a
vertical scale with concept representations corresponding to
emotional feelings, according to another example;
[0022] FIGS. 11-14 are graphical illustrations showing a horizontal
rating scale with concept representations, according to further
examples;
[0023] FIG. 15 is a graphical illustration of a horizontal rating
scale with each of the words in a different row, according to yet
another embodiment of the present invention;
[0024] FIGS. 16-17 are graphical illustrations of a two dimensional
scale with concept representations, according to yet another
example;
[0025] FIG. 18 is a graphical illustration of a two dimensional
polar coordinate scale with concept representations, according to
yet another example;
[0026] FIG. 19 is a flow chart illustrating a method for
representing and recording judgments by associating concept
representations in space, according to a further embodiment of the
present invention; and
[0027] FIG. 20 is a graphical illustration of concept
representations associated in space, according to one example.
[0028] pictures or some other icon (such as a solid geometric
figure) The concepts can be any physical item (e.g., food) or
non-physical concept (e.g., feelings or issues) about which a user
can express judgment. Using the user input 16 (e.g., by depressing
the mouse button), the user represents one or more relative
judgments by locating concept representations in the space relative
to other concept representations, a physical context, and/or a
scale. The system can receive user-manipulated adjustments of the
concept representations relative to each other, the physical
context, and/or the scale. In response to the user's manipulation
of the concept representations), the system draws the concept
representation at its user-designated location, such as occurs when
icons are moved across the screen in computer operating
systems.
[0029] The system thus allows the users to dynamically express
and/or modify their relative judgments, for example, by positioning
the concept representations relative to one another, relative to a
scale, and/or relative to a physical context on the computer
screen. The sequential order and value of each manipulation and
adjustment is recorded, together with the time required by the user
to make the adjustment. The user continues locating concept
representations on the screen or continues making adjustments of
all concept representations until satisfied with the judgments
represented. When the user is satisfied, the user signals (e.g., by
pressing any key on the computer keyboard), and the system then
records the final values of the judgment representations. Various
methods of the present invention are described in greater detail
below.
[0030] One method of representing and recording judgments in
relation to a physical context is illustrated in FIG. 3. According
to this method, at least one physical context representation is
displayed, step 112. The physical context representation represents
the physical context (e.g., the user's body) in which the user is
making judgments, and the user is asked to make a judgment by
designating locations (e.g., a pain location) in the physical
context. The system then receives the user input judgment
associated with at least one location in the physical context, step
116. The location representing the user's judgment is then
displayed in relation to the physical context representation, step
120. User input information (e.g., each user designation and the
time between designations) is recorded as each of the locations are
designated by the user, step 124. The user can adjust or modify the
judgment representations, step 128, for example, by designating new
locations and/or erasing existing designations. The user input
information for these adjustments is also recorded. When the user
is finished, the final judgment representations are recorded, step
130.
[0031] Referring to FIG. 4, one example of the method of
representing and recording judgments in relation to a physical
context is described in greater detail. According to this exemplary
method, the user is a patient experiencing a sensory symptom such
as pain or itchiness, the physical context is the patient's body,
and judgments pertaining to the location of the symptom are
recorded. The system displays outline drawings 30 of a human head
and body, and the user locates the cursor at one or more locations
32a, 32b on the figure to indicate the pain or itchiness or some
other sensory symptom.
[0032] Depressing the mouse results in the appearance of a solid
figure (square, circle, or some other geometric figure) at that
location. The size of the figure can be adjusted to accommodate the
size of the entire drawing as it appears on the computer screen. By
holding down the mouse button and moving the cursor, the user can
fill in a region on the drawing or indicate the exact pattern of
locations on the body where the symptom is experienced. The system
preferably only places points that do not overlap with adjacent
points so that the system does not have multiple records of the
same (or almost the same) placement location. A library of "legal"
points (i.e., those falling within the confines of the figure) can
be stored separately, and checked by the software before displaying
a point indicated by the user. The user can also erase any
inadvertent designations. Different colors or types of geometric
figures can be used to represent different types of sensory
symptoms (e.g., different types or intensities of pain) in a
physical context. In one example shown in FIG. 4A, patients can
record their symptoms at different intensities on the body picture
using different colors to represent the different intensities (as
indicated by the scale), thereby providing a symptom scanning
technique.
[0033] The system records the order of each point's placement on
the drawing, for example, by recording the x,y coordinates of each
point placed on the drawing. The system also records the times
between each designation of a point on the drawing. This data
allows an investigator to exactly reproduce the judgment process
employed by the user in marking locations on the figure. The
recorded judgment data and judgment process data can thus be used
to evaluate the patient's condition. In one example, an animated
graphical representation showing the judgment process can be
replayed (e.g., as a movie) to visualize the exact manner in which
the user made each judgment. In another example, the data can be
compared to previously recorded data for other patients, which has
been stored in a library of data, to give a likely diagnosis for
consideration by the physician.
[0034] According to one variation of this method for representing
and recording judgments of sensory symptoms, as shown in FIG. 5,
multidimensional judgments pertaining to the symptoms at each
user-designated location can be represented and recorded. For
example, a graphical representation 34 associated with a
user-designated location can be displayed to allow the user to make
the multidimensional judgments further characterizing the symptoms.
Examples of methods for representing and recording
multi-dimensional judgment representations (e.g., using a fixed
resource technique) are described in greater detail in co-pending
provisional application Serial No. 60/270,854 (Attorney Docket No.
BAIRD-001PR) and application Ser. No. 09/950,126 (Attorney Docket
No. BAIRD-001XX), both of which are incorporated herein by
reference. Other methods for representing and recording judgments
to further characterize the symptoms include the methods described
in greater detail below.
[0035] One method of representing and recording judgments in
relation to a rating scale is illustrated in FIG. 6. According to
this method, multiple unrated concept representations are displayed
(e.g., using words, pictures or icons), step 222. The concepts can
be physical or non-physical and can include anything about which a
user can express a judgment. One or more rating scales are also
displayed, step 226. The rating scale(s) provide a range of
possible judgments applicable to the concepts (e.g., degrees of
pain). The user is asked to make a judgment rating each of the
concepts in relation to the rating scale(s) and in relation to one
another, for example, by manipulating and locating the concept
representations along the rating scale(s). When the user input
rating of a concept is received, step 230, the concept
representation is displayed in relation to the scale, step 234.
User input information is recorded as the user rates (or adjusts
the rating of) each of the concepts, step 238. If the user wants to
rate another concept or adjust a rating, step 242, these steps are
repeated. When the user is satisfied, the final ratings are
recorded as the user's judgment representation, step 246.
[0036] Referring to FIGS. 7-17, examples of the method of
representing and recording judgments in relation to a rating scale
are described in greater detail. As shown by example in FIG. 7,
words initially appear in a vertical list 40 on the screen and a
single linear scale 42 appears on the screen with numerical values
(e.g., integers 1 to 10) and tick marks. The scale 42 can be
oriented either vertically (FIGS. 7-10) or horizontally (FIGS.
11-15). The user moves the words (i.e., the concept
representations) to positions along the scale 42 to indicate an
amount or degree along the dimension, thereby representing the
user's judgment by rating the concept. In one example, the movement
is accomplished by positioning the cursor on the word, clicking on
the mouse, and moving the cursor. The system automatically erases
the old representation of the word and draws it in the new
location. This occurs continuously as the cursor is moved.
[0037] When a concept representation is manipulated, an indication
is preferably displayed on the rating scale indicating the user
input rating. For example, the movement of a single word along the
scale 42 leads to a corresponding change in the position of an
arrowhead 46 that slides along the scale 42 and points to the exact
rating at each instant in time. The words can appear at any
position along the dimension of the computer screen that is
orthogonal to the orientation of the measurement scale 42, thus
allowing different items to receive the same ratings. For example,
the words can be located in separate rows above the horizontal
scale 42', as shown in FIG. 15, so that more than one concept can
be given the same rating without the words overlapping. In the case
of a vertical scale, the words can be located adjacent to each
other, within the limits of the screen size.
[0038] As additional words are added to the scale 42, the user
rates the words with respect to the scale and relative to the other
words already rated. The method allows the user to continue
manipulating the positions of the words until the user is satisfied
with all the ratings. The user input information recorded includes
each move, the order for each move, and the time required for each
move. In one example, the user input information is stored as an
animated graphical representation, which can be replayed to
visualize the exact process of making each judgment.
[0039] In the example illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 12, a patient in
chronic pain adjusted the adjectives to indicate the
appropriateness (Least to Best) of each adjective for describing
the character of the patient's pain. The adjective "throbbing" was
rated as the most appropriate and the adjective "tender" was rated
as the least appropriate. The advantage of this method over the
standard means of obtaining ratings for each adjective in isolation
is that judgments are made within a "context" of other adjectives,
thus encouraging the user to make distinctions among the adjectives
in terms of their ratings. In the standard method when adjectives
are rated in isolation in the clinic, chronic pain patients tend to
choose high ratings of appropriateness or intensity for all the
adjectives. In another example illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 14, the
patient used the adjectives to describe the patient's feelings.
[0040] According to another example, shown in FIGS. 16-17, concept
representations are located by the user along two dimensions
simultaneously. As shown by example in FIG. 16, words initially
appear in a vertical list 40 on the screen and a two-dimensional,
orthogonal coordinate system (e.g., vertical rating scale 42 and
horizontal rating scale 42') is shown with tick marks and integers
designating different levels of the attribute being judged. The
user moves the words (i.e., concept representations) to positions
within the two-dimensional space relative to the vertical scale 42
and the horizontal scale 42'. This movement of the representation
is linked in a linear fashion to movement of one arrowhead 46a
along the vertical scale 42 and of another arrowhead 46b along the
horizontal scale 42'. The system allows the user to continue
manipulating the positions of the items in two dimensions until
they are satisfied with all the ratings along both scales 42, 42'.
The system records the concept ratings and movements on both scales
42, 42', the order for each move, and the time required for each
move.
[0041] In one example, the user may not assign exactly the same
ratings (x and y coordinates) for two or more items because this
requires that the two words be placed on top of each other, thereby
making them unreadable. According to another example, a
three-dimensional scale can be used with each of the words located
and movable in its own plane above the ground plane including the
two-dimensional scale. When each of the words is moved, the x, y
location is displayed on the ground plane relative to the
two-dimensional scale. This three-dimensional example allows
multiple words to have the same rating (i.e., the same x, y
location) without the words having to be placed on top of one
another.
[0042] In the example illustrated in FIG. 17, a hypothetical user
expressed their preference (vertical scale) and perceived
nutritional value (horizontal scale) of different foods. The item
"pasta" was rated as well liked and of high nutrition; the item
"water" was rated as well liked and low in nutrition; the item
"broccoli" was rated as poorly liked and high in nutrition; and the
item "lettuce" was rated as poorly liked and low in nutrition.
[0043] Alternatively, the two dimensional scale can be represented
as a polar coordinate system 50, as shown in FIG. 18. The user
moves the concept representations 52 (e.g., words, letters,
pictures or icons) within one or more circles 54 to different
locations in the space. The value measured along one dimension
(e.g., preference) is the distance of the item from the center 56
of the circle(s) 54. The value along the second dimension (e.g.,
nutritional value) is the angle of a vector extending from the
center 56 of the circle(s) 54.
[0044] According to another method of representing and recording
judgments, as shown in FIG. 19, concept representations are
positioned relative to one another in two dimensions without any
physical context or rating scale. Multiple concept representations
(e.g., words, pictures, or icons) are displayed, step 322. The user
is asked to make judgments by manipulating the concept
representations and moving the concept representations in relation
to one another. The user manipulations of the concept
representations are received, step 326, and the concept
representations are displayed at the user-designated location, step
330. User input information is recorded as each concept
representation is manipulated, step 334. These steps can be
repeated to adjust or modify the user's judgment, step 338. When
the user is finished, the final positions of the concept
representations representing the user's judgments are recorded,
step 342.
[0045] One example of this method of positioning concept
representations 60 in two-dimensional space is used with food
items, as shown in FIG. 20. The user locates the food items in two
dimensions on the computer screen by moving words to positions
relative to each other. No scales or units of measure are shown and
the user is not told what the two dimensions of the screen
represent. The user is instructed to adjust the items such that
those items that go together (specific attributes can be specified)
are close together in space and those items that do not go together
are far apart in space. The inter-item distances can later be
analyzed so that items are placed in either clustered groupings
(non metric) or in a two-dimensional coordinate system (metric).
The advantage of this method over previous manual and computer
applications is that one can store a running record of every
keystroke made by the user in rendering judgments as items are
moved about the screen.
[0046] According to further embodiments of the present invention,
any of the methods described above can incorporate the fixed
resource technique, as described in greater detail in co-pending
provisional application Serial No. 60/270,854 (Attorney Docket No.
BAIRD-001PR) and application Ser. No. 09/950,126 (Attorney Docket
No. BAIRD-001XX), both of which are incorporated herein by
reference. For example, a horizontal scale 42' (for example, as
shown in FIG. 15) can be used with each word (or other type of
concept representation) located in its own row above the scale 42'.
As one word is moved horizontally in relation to the scale 42', one
or more of the other words are able to move automatically without
interfering with one another in accordance with the fixed resource
technique. The three-dimensional scale described above can also be
used according to this embodiment to provide the fixed resources in
two dimensions.
[0047] Accordingly, the system and method of the present invention
is able to dynamically represent relative judgments while also
recording the judgment process. Modifications and substitutions by
one of ordinary skill in the art are considered to be within the
scope of the present invention, which is not to be limited except
by the following claims.
* * * * *